Arrogant cyclists

lcharm

Agreed, I feel like there's a very 'them and us' approach and constant blame-mongering by motorists AND cyclists alike and it's this attitude that gets nothing done.

Skinto_7

ASF2012 wrote: »

Speed limits are just that - limits. Not the speed at which you should travel or expect to travel. Speed limits just indicate what is judged to be safe on that particular bit of road in good conditions. Speed should be adjusted to take into account prevailing conditions around you - weather, traffic density etc

ASF,

Obviously a speed limit is not a mandate that requires you to be going at that speed constantly, and again is obviously altered/dictated by the conditions.

However can you not see that anyone travelling 40mph below this limit, when conditions dictate the limit is perfectly safe, will at least cause unneccessary disruption and at worst actually be a danger?

As i say i am not delibretly trying to have a go at cyclists however it seems many cyclists can see no other side than their own!!!!

Idiophreak

Skinto_7 wrote: »

Instead of motorists spending their time arguing with each other about who is worse than who, perhaps we should spend more time fighting to get our roads improved to a state where they can safely accomodate cyclists and motorists together!!

Yeah, we should really be focussing on Alchemy too...And perpetual motion...and bacon wings!

Sadly, it's fundamentally impractical for British roads to accommodate both safely *together*. Changing the roads to accommodate both safely *apart* would be a much better idea

Skinto_7

Idiophreak wrote: »

Yeah, we should really be focussing on Alchemy too...And perpetual motion...and bacon wings!

Sadly, it's fundamentally impractical for British roads to accommodate both safely *together*. Changing the roads to accommodate both safely *apart* would be a much better idea

mmmmmmmm bacon wings!!!!!:)

faith2009uk

I'm a car driver however witness poor use of the road by drivers/cyclists and the horse and carts!

Just this week whilst waiting at a busy junction indicating right, a cyclist rode up next to me on my left not signalling where he wanted to go and went right without looking in front of my car. If he had any sense he would realise I had stopped due to traffic but no, straight in front of a car coming right and nearly into the lane where a massive truck was driving down doing 40mph. Car luckily stopped, truck carried on. Once clear I pulled out however cyclist remained weaving from left to right making it difficult for me to overtake. On my journey that day I saw at least another 2 cyclists going through red lights etc (20 min journey!)

On the other hand I also saw lots of cars sitting on other cars bumpers (in the left lane, no one on the right lane) and lots of ignorant drivers refusing to let other drivers in.

Although generally cyclists wind me up more (going through red lights makes my blood boil) I think it might be because I know what things to expect from drivers, whereas cyclists have more freedom to do what they want. Whether its go on pavements, go through red lights, weave in and out of traffic, and often without any signals.

Bongles

ASF2012 wrote: »

Speed limits just indicate what is judged to be safe on that particular bit of road in good conditions.

Goodness! I wish speed limits were set on that basis - then many of them would be a lot higher. But that's beside the point (And you're absolutely right with everything in the rest of your post).

Skinto_7 wrote: »

However can you not see that anyone travelling 40mph below this limit, when conditions dictate the limit is perfectly safe, will at least cause unneccessary disruption and at worst actually be a danger?

Are you thinking of, for example, driving on a road with a 60 limit (and safe to drive at 60) and encountering a cyclist doing 20? Given that the cyclist is most unlikely to be able to do 60, while the driver might experience some disruption to their flow, I don't see how that disruption could be described as unnecessary, any more than calling it an unnecessary disruption when you encounter a tractor doing 20, or a bend that requires you to slow to 20. You only ever get to drive the road as you actually find it, not as you might wish to find it.

There are all sorts of hazards that might require people to slow down - some of them physical (like bends and junctions), some of them simply due to the fact that we all share the same roads and we inevitably encounter each other using our various modes of transport when we're out and about.

NBLondon

Bongles wrote: »

Are you thinking of, for example, driving on a road with a 60 limit (and safe to drive at 60) and encountering a cyclist doing 20?

Hang on - that comment was in response to one about taking the middle of the lane / primary position..

and it teaches cyclists that it is perfectly acceptable to take up the 'primary position' (i.e. cycling in the middle of the lane) as long as the cyclist is able to ride at the same speed as the rest of the traffic - and most fit cyclists these days on a decent bike can do that

So - primary position at 20mph in traffic doing 20-25mph is reasonable; primary position at 20mph on a straight 60mph road isn't. 3 abreast in that case is carelessly or deliberately impeding other road users.

Idiophreak wrote: »

I find quite often people overtaking me for no good reason...I'm keeping up with the flow of traffic, minding my own business, but I'm still being overtaken...And I really think it's just people see a cyclist and think "right...when can I overtake them?" the question "do I need to overtake them" doesn't even dawn on them...

Yep - some idiot drivers do do that. I've even seen them overtake me because I was hanging back behind a cyclist.

Of course some idiot cyclists do the same trick.... One of my regular routes takes me down a long hill to a set of lights. I'll be coasting down to a line of stopped traffic and a lycra lout will pass me on the right (going over the centre line) then cut straight across the front and take to the pavement to bypass the lights.

faith2009uk wrote: »

Just this week whilst waiting at a busy junction indicating right, a cyclist rode up next to me on my left not signalling where he wanted to go and went right without looking in front of my car. If he had any sense he would realise I had stopped due to traffic but no, straight in front of a car coming right and nearly into the lane where a massive truck was driving down doing 40mph.

Saw something similar this morning. Traffic lights are red; there are two cars waiting and then a bus stop; the bus is indicating so I stop short to allow the bus to pull out (as the Highway Code says). The bus starts to move and then a cyclist comes round the right again and straight across my front into the gap the bus was turning into. Maybe it's a London thing but some really do seem to think they are invincible...

Bongles

NBLondon wrote: »

Hang on - that comment was in response to one about taking the middle of the lane / primary position..

Not in the post I responded too, but I can see that context in a previous post. Thanks for clarifying. It's easy to lose context in the absence of nested quotes.

Bongles

NBLondon wrote: »

3 abreast in that case is carelessly or deliberately impeding other road users.

Potentially, although I think whether it's easier to overtake an obstacle three bikes wide and one bike long, or three bikes long and one bike wide depends on the situation.

Passing three abreast probably means going fully offside, so there needs to be no immediate oncoming traffic. But then, unless the road is very wide, passing just one cyclist (or three in a line, i.e. passing a one-bike-wide obstacle) probably involves at least partly crossing the centre line (I'm imagining a typical B-road - the sort of road I associate with encountering groups out cycling), so the issue with oncoming traffic is the same. If there are offside hazards (e.g. junctions or entrances) it may be that going fully offside isn't wise, but partially crossing the centre line is OK, so three cyclists abreast would be more of an obstacle. On the other hand, you need a longer stretch of clear distance to pass three in a line than three abreast. Of course, if they're in a line, there's the possibility of them spacing out so you can pass one at a time. But then the whole obstacle is even longer still from the point of view of being able to pass all three at once, and then it's back to whether three opportunities to safely pass a single cyclist come along sooner than one opportunity to safely pass three abreast.

Swings and roundabouts.

On a long, straight, clear road with no oncoming traffic and no lateral hazards it doesn't make much difference.

interstellaflyer

Bongles wrote: »

Swings and roundabouts.

On a long, straight, clear road with no oncoming traffic and no lateral hazards it doesn't make much difference.

Actually it does make a difference, the highway code shows a picture of a car overtaking a cyclist by crossing the white line and using the opposite side of the road and describes that as the correct way to overtake a cyclist (this is how I overtake cyclists), giving them plenty of room, if you have three cyclists riding abreast then potentially the outer most cyclist is on or close to the centre lines, this means a motorist cannot give them safe distance when overtaking, when it is 3 older cyclists plodding along at less than 10 mph in a 40mph zone and refusing to go single file as happened to me once, then you can see why some motorists may get a little annoyed, I gave a very gentle and quick toot on the horn, to warn them I was there and wished to overtake them safely and got a V sign in return, now if they moved to single file it is then up to the motorist to choose a time when he/she can pass all three, if they are riding 3 abreast and out to the centrelines then the motorist is stuck behind the selfish prats. I should mention that I am a cyclist, maybe not a serious one but I do like taking my 9 year old daughter out on cycle rides at the weekend or on a nice evening.